Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50493 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44031 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2010 05:38:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Nov 2010 05:38:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.143 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.143 smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.143] ([67.192.241.143:41304] helo=smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D9/A8-12084-566FDEC4 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:38:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp14.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7477D2982A4; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:38:42 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp14.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 0FE23298295; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:38:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CEDF661.3090800@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:38:41 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derick Rethans CC: Felipe Pena , internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Release Process From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! >> With the recent chaos in the way we begin and ended releases, we would >> like to propose a clean way to deal with releases and related decisions: [1] > > Really? I think you're blowing this all way out of proportion. > > I don't mind a yearly release cycle, as we should get out more releases. > I don't mind a monthly release cycle for .z releases. I think the idea is not focusing on "yearly" or "monthly" but having some predictable schedule. Nobody says it should be set in stone, let's be realistic here - if we need to slip a release here and there, we'd do it. But having known targets is the goal, not having releases "whenever somebody on the list wakes up and decides to have a release". I think the project needs to grow up a bit and have at least some semblance of release schedule. The mere existence of it written somewhere public would motivate people to adhere to it. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227